Boeing F-15EX / F-15QA and related variants

SgtGungHo said:
www.airforcemag.com

Alternate Fighter Plan: Cut F-15EX, Extend F-22, Buy New Stealth Jets, More F-35s | Air & Space Forces Magazine

The Air Force should drop its “4+1” fighter plan, keep the F-22 longer, and add more F-35s, a new Mitchell Institute paper argues.
www.airforcemag.com www.airforcemag.com

Can we assume this is what AFA thinks of F-15EX? since Mitchell Institute is an affiliate of AFA.
Click to expand...

AFA as an organization? Mitchell Institute is their analytical side/think-tank so yes this is the view of their leadership. However, they seem to be making it out to be a much larger problem then it is. The AF is modernizing the ANG with 138 F-15EX's (remaining are test etc). The alternative would have been to just keep the F-15C's and have them limp to a slow death and be a readiness challenge well into the 2030s. There aren't 138 F-35A's sitting in the production plan for them to pluck and offload to the ANG, and the Block 4 is going to be delayed by at least a couple of years so there are limited options there.

That said their overall sentiments are understandable. If you have finite resources you really not ought to be buying F-15EX's but maximizing F-35A buys. But it isn't exactly as black and white. There is a limit to the F-35A's the AF can buy and absorb, there are delays to block 4 and tech refresh, and then there are industrial base concerns of being reliant on one supplier and getting it to perform. 138 F-15EX is a fairly small number so I'm not sure atacking such a purchase repeatedly serves AFA that much. Now if the Congress begins scaling back NGAD and ramping up F-15EX then that becomes a problem (it would go from a targeted turning over of the ANG F-15C fleet to a distraction). But so far, what I'm seeing from the House and the Senate is a realization that NGAD (AF) is important and must be funded (including adaptive engines and weapons). The USAF will continue to buy the F-35A at 48 a/c per year until it gets the full Blk 4 hardware that is tested and validated, at which time it may begin asking for 60 ac/year through close of its purchase plan.
 
Last edited:
WASHINGTON (AFNS) --
The United States Air Force awarded a $1,579,662,187 contract to General Electric, GE Edison Works, Cincinnati, Oct. 29, for the purchase of 29 engines — installs and spares — in support of the production of 12 F-15EX Eagle II aircraft.

Initial deliveries will begin in October 2023.

The contract includes seven additional options for the purchase of a most-probable quantity of 329 engines with the final delivery occurring in 2031.

Over the next 10 years, these projected deliveries will support the production of 136 F-15EX aircraft to meet the Air Force’s projected demand.
www.af.mil

US Air Force awards F-15EX engine contract

The United States Air Force awarded a $1,579,662,187 contract to General Electric, GE Edison Works, Cincinnati, Oct. 29, for the purchase of 29 engines — installs and spares — in support of the
www.af.mil
 
4313009f22383057e4f4a8bdcaaf6.jpg
 
Not your father's but it is Singapore's, Saudi Arabia's, and Qatar's. Also, some of those number on the chart seem off. Ceiling wouldn't have changed. Not sure how they get to 6,500lbs more payload as those two extra pylons they activated are only good for about 1,000lbs each.
 
Yes, those and the service life improvement jumped out at me too. No idea why ceiling would change either, but there are reasons why the other figures could be correct. SL as I understand is mostly a certification matter, that is to say the airframe was basically always good for 20k hours (contingent on the corresponding usage assumptions), only it had not been proven and approved. A similar issue could be at play with the payload, you'll find on many combat aircraft that the maximum permitted load is lower than the sum of hardpoint capacities. It is possible that the F-15EX unlocks new payload combinations which were not certified previously (FBW could play a role here as well, if FCS issues used to preclude certain configurations).
 
Also weird that they quote the F-15EX price in FY-18 dollars when the first aircraft wasn't purchased till FY-20. The EX is more expensive to buy than the F-35A and will remain so pretty much through the entire program.
 
TomS said:
sferrin said:
Ceiling wouldn't have changed.
Click to expand...

Trident said:
No idea why ceiling would change either
Click to expand...

Service ceiling is defined as the altitude at which the aircraft can sustain a 500 ft per minute rate of climb. New engines could definitely change service ceiling.
Click to expand...
Many sources have said 65,000 feet for the Eagle since the 70s. I'd think the 50,000 limit is because of lack of pressure suits, which wouldn't change with new engines.
 
I wonder if service life is “what’s left” not from new for the E
 
The Mitchell Institute and the USAF both - weirdly - seem to ignore the combat radius demands of the Pacific. One could argue that the USAF needs a Tactical-Bomber more than any new fighter, something which can operate from airbases in southern Japan and reach the Taiwan Strait with a useful stand-off payload. A 3000lb payload 1250nm, something in that class.

Perhaps this is the fighter-mafia speaking, but the emphasis on more short-ranged stealth fighters appears detached from the geographic realities of the Pacific Theater.
 
DrRansom said:
The Mitchell Institute and the USAF both - weirdly - seem to ignore the combat radius demands of the Pacific. One could argue that the USAF needs a Tactical-Bomber more than any new fighter, something which can operate from airbases in southern Japan and reach the Taiwan Strait with a useful stand-off payload. A 3000lb payload 1250nm, something in that class.

Perhaps this is the fighter-mafia speaking, but the emphasis on more short-ranged stealth fighters appears detached from the geographic realities of the Pacific Theater.
Click to expand...
FB-111H or Backfire-C would be nice. (Since we aren't keeping the B-1Bs apparently.)
 
sferrin said:
FB-111H or Backfire-C would be nice. (Since we aren't keeping the B-1Bs apparently.)
Click to expand...

Something in the FB-111H class, small enough to operate from dispersed airfields with less than complete ground facilities, but big enough to carry a decent payload without relying on tanker support.

The bias of the whole report can be seen in the emphasis on Fighter, the USAF Fighter plan. The USAF needs attack and bomber aircraft, more so than fighters, especially fighters for long-range air superiority.
 
777F CMAC If they build 50 it would do many missions. Ultra long range and at maximum load could carry 40ish LRASMs or 36ish AGM-158Ds . I do not know if they fit in the common rotary launcher. 777f could hold 90ish AGM-158A's I just do not know the weight of the common rotary launcher. I would only run AGM-158BorD/LRASM/Hypersonic weapons if possible but at It would make sense to have one launcher that is constantly refilled as missiles launch or reloaded after a full salvo. Knowing the USAF they would have at least two launchers per plane to saturate enemy ship or ground based defenses. In groups of 5 or 10 aircraft that is a lot of incoming ordinance. If we can believe what has been guessed about the weight of the LRHW missile it could carry 12 of these speedy yet slowly developing missiles. Common Rotary Launcher is obviously out. They probably have plans on modifying all commercial airliners into weapons carriers. At least all the freighters. With the seeming success of Rapid Dragon. I see no reason why we cannot set up a similar systems for the 777F, 747-8F,767F, etc. It could be very nasty one time punch used with USAF transports and bombers.
 
Last edited:
sferrin said:
DrRansom said:
The Mitchell Institute and the USAF both - weirdly - seem to ignore the combat radius demands of the Pacific. One could argue that the USAF needs a Tactical-Bomber more than any new fighter, something which can operate from airbases in southern Japan and reach the Taiwan Strait with a useful stand-off payload. A 3000lb payload 1250nm, something in that class.

Perhaps this is the fighter-mafia speaking, but the emphasis on more short-ranged stealth fighters appears detached from the geographic realities of the Pacific Theater.
Click to expand...
FB-111H or Backfire-C would be nice. (Since we aren't keeping the B-1Bs apparently.)
Click to expand...
They are retiring 17 of the oldest airframes. 45 will remain in service, with four in Type 2000 recallable storage. We beat them up in Afghanistan. It is going to cost a whole lot of of money and work to keep these 45 running until the B21 can replace them.
www.airforcemag.com

B-1s Can Make it to Finish Line, But Big Repairs Will Be Common Along the Way | Air & Space Forces Magazine

USAF expects to have enough resources to keep the B-1B bomber flying safely at least until it can be replaced by the B-21, service officials said.
www.airforcemag.com www.airforcemag.com
 
DistopicProcurement said:
NMaude said:
I have a question concerning the Pratt&Whitney F100 and the General Electric engines and that is where exactly are they made in the US? I've tried looking on the wikipedia but the articles concerning their makers are vague as to where they're actually built.
Click to expand...

It's my understanding that the GE fighter engines are made in Lynn, Mass with the P&W in Hartford, CT. In both cases, the parts within the engines themselves are made all over the country.
Click to expand...
Not exactly. P&W engines are built in Hartford, CT. The GE engines built in West Lynn, MA are the "small" military engines (T700, F414, et al.) while the large Ge engines are built in Cincinatti, OH (F110, F118, large civil engines, et al.)
.
 
Unfortunaely from that last batch, one of the QA went tech so it stayed and then another four ship delivery came through Mildenhall at lunchtime. SO here are m photos below of the remaining QA from the first batch carrying a flight test with unetricted climb then the second four ship arriving.

Cheers
 

Attachments

  • 268055925_10160185016726490_7471282479753315601_n.jpg
    268055925_10160185016726490_7471282479753315601_n.jpg
    102.4 KB · Views: 62
  • 268002893_10160185016841490_5367230019499933423_n.jpg
    268002893_10160185016841490_5367230019499933423_n.jpg
    88.9 KB · Views: 48
  • 267502926_10160185016691490_5926100690736373427_n.jpg
    267502926_10160185016691490_5926100690736373427_n.jpg
    90.5 KB · Views: 42
  • 267301926_10160185016601490_5348504672148429567_n.jpg
    267301926_10160185016601490_5348504672148429567_n.jpg
    52.4 KB · Views: 43
  • 267290213_10160185016586490_6326448046547330210_n.jpg
    267290213_10160185016586490_6326448046547330210_n.jpg
    53.4 KB · Views: 47
  • 267378438_10160185017136490_7313124103884699134_n.jpg
    267378438_10160185017136490_7313124103884699134_n.jpg
    80.3 KB · Views: 57
  • 267583938_10160185016811490_2362231733099137617_n.jpg
    267583938_10160185016811490_2362231733099137617_n.jpg
    68.4 KB · Views: 67
  • 267490584_10160185016631490_5022000366749640090_n.jpg
    267490584_10160185016631490_5022000366749640090_n.jpg
    77.7 KB · Views: 70
  • 267351072_10160185017026490_4082943514338977508_n.jpg
    267351072_10160185017026490_4082943514338977508_n.jpg
    103.1 KB · Views: 60
  • 267689389_10160185016886490_3091675073529905850_n.jpg
    267689389_10160185016886490_3091675073529905850_n.jpg
    96.3 KB · Views: 53
  • 267208745_10160185016761490_124449737875577200_n.jpg
    267208745_10160185016761490_124449737875577200_n.jpg
    106.5 KB · Views: 59
In addition to the those changes, the 2022 NDAA contains numerous provisions related to the Air Force fleet. It funds the service’s request to procure 48 new F-35s and adds five F-15EXs to an initial request for 12[...]
Click to expand...

So, 17 EX added for 2022

www.airforcemag.com

Congress Passes 2022 NDAA, Sending Bill to President Biden | Air & Space Forces Magazine

The Senate voted to pass the 2022 National Defense Authorization Act on Dec. 15, continuing Congress's streak of passing an NDAA every year.
www.airforcemag.com www.airforcemag.com
 
Sorry, if this is a dumb question, but can the F-15EX be considered a new aircraft in the shape of the old one, like the Su-35, or the Super Hornet? As far as I know, both of those were redesigned from the ground up using new technologies and digital design. Or is this a very deep modernization/modification of the original, just like the rest of the Su-27 family?
 
@torginus : Well, Boeing call it the Eagle II... So, by the say of it, it must be regarded as a new plane.
Then it's up to Boeing to match services expectations in the long term with what is branded as a new model.
 
Last edited:
torginus said:
Sorry, if this is a dumb question, but can the F-15EX be considered a new aircraft in the shape of the old one, like the Su-35, or the Super Hornet? As far as I know, both of those were redesigned from the ground up using new technologies and digital design. Or is this a very deep modernization/modification of the original, just like the rest of the Su-27 family?
Click to expand...

In one word no. As you rightly said in your post torginus the F-15EX is far more like the deep upgrade of the Su-35 and the latest Block 3 update of the Super Hornet, no matter what Boeing try to say there is no way that it is a new aircraft unlike the NGAD. It is just Boeing trying to milk all they can out of the F-15 Eagle before it eventually has to retire.
 
torginus said:
Sorry, if this is a dumb question, but can the F-15EX be considered a new aircraft in the shape of the old one, like the Su-35, or the Super Hornet? As far as I know, both of those were redesigned from the ground up using new technologies and digital design. Or is this a very deep modernization/modification of the original, just like the rest of the Su-27 family?
Click to expand...
You couldn't rebuild a Hornet into a Super Hornet (unless you count "throw old one out and build a new one" as a "rebuild"), you'd have a hard time rebuilding an Su-27 into an Su-35 but it's probably possible (if not exactly practical). Eagle to Eagle II would seem to be pretty doable, if one wished.
 
@RAFAELdefense
We have completed the development of the latest generation of the Sky-Shield family of Electronic Attack (EA) Pods. It's now undergoing extensive flight trials on a 4.5 gen. fighter aircraft for an undisclosed customer & will soon provide unprecedented capabilities.
Click to expand...

href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SkyShield?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc^tfw">#SkyShield</a> <a href="https://t.co/K6mxkUtUzO">pic.twitter.com/K6mxkUtUzO</a></p>&mdash; RAFAEL Advanced Defense Systems (@RAFAELdefense) <a href="
https://twitter.com/x/status/1488497690061295620
View: https://twitter.com/RAFAELdefense/status/1488497690061295620?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
 
So their air force will be flying F-15s, Rafales, KF-21s in addition to F-16s, Su-27s, Su-30s, F-5s and Hawks? i feel like they need to get rid of at least 3 types.

it also looks like to be the second country to use the F-15 and Rafale as a hi-lo mix (well a more hi-mid mix).
 
helmutkohl said:
So their air force will be flying F-15s, Rafales, KF-21s in addition to F-16s, Su-27s, Su-30s, F-5s and Hawks? i feel like they need to get rid of at least 3 types.

it also looks like to be the second country to use the F-15 and Rafale as a hi-lo mix (well a more hi-mid mix).
Click to expand...
F5 already gone years ago. I think KF21 will replace F16 and Flanker fleet eventually.
 
The F-15's if really taken will replace our Su-30's and 27's. as our flankers schedule to retire somewhere in 2027-2030 era. While those KF-21's will be capital defense squadrons.


Logistical wise, people may bitch about having PW-229, 220, M88, 414 and 404. But the view was based on countries. Currently we are only maintaining fighter engine from 2 Countries. Russia and US. As Russian engine retires we will still maintain 2 line engines which are French and US.

There are other concerns like avionics etc but well if AESA is as good as it said... there would be NO need at all in opening the radome other than regular antenna inspection. there will be no transmitter maintenance or replacement as it was customary with conventional radar (TWT lasts for about 200-500 Hr) The TRM will last very long without replacement and lets hope no cutting corners by reducing the "excess" module required for "graceful degradation" properties.

Another thing is blackboxes like optics and those fancy targeting pods... These items are likely to be maintained directly by US Contractors, the black box part might as well sent home to US for maintenance when the time comes.
 
www.defensenews.com

Sukhois for palm oil: Russia and Indonesia announce new barter arrangement

After three painstaking years of negotiation, Russia and Indonesia have finally agreed to sign a major aerospace deal later this year: 11 top-of-the-line Sukhoi Su-35 fighter jets in exchange for Indonesian palm oil, coffee, and other goods.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com

Indonesia's finances were in such bad shape that for the purchase of the Flankers they were planning to barter raw goods such as palm oil and coffee. So how they the heck are they going to be able to afford a potential Eagle order as well as the new fleet of Rafales they just announced yesterday ? They can't even afford to make the required payments on the KF-21 program.
 
Last edited:
alberchico said:
www.defensenews.com

Sukhois for palm oil: Russia and Indonesia announce new barter arrangement

After three painstaking years of negotiation, Russia and Indonesia have finally agreed to sign a major aerospace deal later this year: 11 top-of-the-line Sukhoi Su-35 fighter jets in exchange for Indonesian palm oil, coffee, and other goods.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com

Indonesia's finances were in such bad shape that for the purchase of the Flankers they were planning to barter raw goods such as palm oil and coffee. So how they the heck are they going to be able to afford a potential Eagle order as well as the new fleet of Rafales they just announced yesterday ? They can't even afford to make the required payments on the KF-21 program.
Click to expand...
Loan from Qatar or UAE.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom